Walterfootball.com Mock Drafts

[The Franchise]

November 6th 2008.

1st round - Kansas City Chiefs: Brian Orakpo, DE, Texas
If you're not a Chiefs fan, chances are you won't know this. OK, guess how many sacks Kansas City's defense has as a whole this season.

Fifteen? Way off. Ten? Nope. Five? Not even!

The Chiefs have four sacks on the year! Four freaking sacks! They foolishly traded away Jared Allen prior to the 2008 Draft, while moving Tamba Hali to right end failed miserably. Hali, now back at left end, needs a dominant pass-rusher across from him to once again play at his 2007 level.

That man can be Brian Orakpo. Through nine games, Orakpo has 13.5 tackles for loss and 8.5 sacks, as he's established himself as the premier defensive end in this draft class. Kansas City's young defense would greatly benefit from having him rushing the opposing quarterback.

Quarterback was an option, but Tyler Thigpen has played extremely well the past two weeks, so the Chiefs could have something with him.


2nd round - Kansas City Chiefs: Brandon Spikes, ILB, Florida
Napoleon Harris was Kansas City's middle linebacker when the season began. That failed miserably, as Harris was cut a few weeks ago. Pat Thomas took Harris' spot, and based on Kansas City's defensive rankings - click here for accurate NFL Run, Pass Defensive Rankings - it hasn't exactly worked out too well.


3rd round - Kansas City Chiefs: Derrick Williams, WR, Penn State
If Tyler Thigpen keeps improving and proves to be Kansas City's quarterback of the future, he'll need another receiver to throw to besides Dwayne Bowe. Bowe and Derrick Williams would be an awesome receiver combination, assuming the latter pans out.

[ChiefsCountry]

So you are scared of a QB busting. Wow read up:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...51#post5306951

[BigChiefFan]

I think Pioli is thinking of going the Cassell route, freeing up the 1st rounder for another position.

[jeffp12]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

You guys are chasing your tails. I think you both are actually in agreement, however one of you PREFERS a QB THIS YEAR via the draft and it seems it must be our 1st round pick(Sanchez,Stafford or Bust) and the other prefers one at a later time or by other means, besides the draft. I think you both make some valid points, but for God's sake let's have a little more fun and alot less bitchin'.

We might be making a move for Cassell AND still keeping our 1st rounder this year.

Yeah you're right. It's a chicken or the egg kind of thing. Does the quarterback make the great team or does the great team make the quarterback? It can work both ways. My point is that Tyler Thigpen is an okay quarterback, maybe not for long, maybe it was just a fluke, but he did pretty well for a guy who rarely took snaps in practice and was thrust in as the 3rd qb and we should give him a shot. You draft sanchez and he might not beat thigpen as the starter. And even if he does and thigpen and croyle are sitting, we have some talent that is wasted. You pick a pass rusher and he doesnt become reggie white you can still use him some of the time, it's not a total bust.

Personally I want to see an NFL team try a quarterback by committee approach. Alternate series. When a QB goes down and you put in a backup who never plays in games you don't know what you have and there's a steep learning curve, if you alternate then both guys are experienced, both guys build confidence, and if one goes down then you just use the other full time. Plus it makes it that much harder to game plan against. It wasn't long ago that they said running back by committe can't work, but now it's the norm.

I'm probably going to catch hell for saying this but Imagine a quarterback duo of Thigpen and Tebow. The reason the running quarterback hasn't succeeded that well at the NFL level is because of injuries, but if you have two, then that risk is greatly reduced. Just saying, somebody oughta try it. Even if it fails it could be fun to watch.

I am a diehard chiefs fan, and I would much rather see them winning consistently behind a great defense than experiencing the ups and downs of the great offense. Those vermeil teams were fun to watch on offense, but boy was it frustrating on defense. Schottenheimer teams were fun to watch on defense, but boy was it frustrating on offense. But if i had a choice, I would pick the schottenheimer teams because with that defense all we needed was a decent offense to get us to 13-3, add a playmaker or two and we could have won super bowls. Under Vermeil that offense was great, but I don't think an extra player or two on defense would have gotten us a ring. That's all I'm saying.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by jeffp12

Yeah you're right. It's a chicken or the egg kind of thing. Does the quarterback make the great team or does the great team make the quarterback? It can work both ways. My point is that Tyler Thigpen is an okay quarterback, maybe not for long, maybe it was just a fluke, but he did pretty well for a guy who rarely took snaps in practice and was thrust in as the 3rd qb and we should give him a shot. You draft sanchez and he might not beat thigpen as the starter. And even if he does and thigpen and croyle are sitting, we have some talent that is wasted. You pick a pass rusher and he doesnt become reggie white you can still use him some of the time, it's not a total bust.

Personally I want to see an NFL team try a quarterback by committee approach. Alternate series. When a QB goes down and you put in a backup who never plays in games you don't know what you have and there's a steep learning curve, if you alternate then both guys are experienced, both guys build confidence, and if one goes down then you just use the other full time. Plus it makes it that much harder to game plan against. It wasn't long ago that they said running back by committe can't work, but now it's the norm.

I'm probably going to catch hell for saying this but Imagine a quarterback duo of Thigpen and Tebow. The reason the running quarterback hasn't succeeded that well at the NFL level is because of injuries, but if you have two, then that risk is greatly reduced. Just saying, somebody oughta try it. Even if it fails it could be fun to watch.

I am a diehard chiefs fan, and I would much rather see them winning consistently behind a great defense than experiencing the ups and downs of the great offense. Those vermeil teams were fun to watch on offense, but boy was it frustrating on defense. Schottenheimer teams were fun to watch on defense, but boy was it frustrating on offense. But if i had a choice, I would pick the schottenheimer teams because with that defense all we needed was a decent offense to get us to 13-3, add a playmaker or two and we could have won super bowls. Under Vermeil that offense was great, but I don't think an extra player or two on defense would have gotten us a ring. That's all I'm saying.

I like alot of what you had to say, so I'll just point out that I don't like the Tebow idea in the least just to get that out of the way.

I'm also hopeful that, by watching the way the Patriots teams operated, that we can emulate them, by not juss being good at only one particular facet of the game. The Pats of recent years, are always well prepared and disciplined in all three phases of the game. It won't happen over night, but I can see Pioli improving the team fairly quickly and us being balanced in our approach.

[jeffp12]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

So you are scared of a QB busting. Wow read up:

I doubt 7 out of 33 is much better than simply the law of averages would give you.

If the record was like 15 of 33 top 5 picked qbs won a superbowl than you have some good statistical backup, but 7 out of 33 doesn't go much above the background noise.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

I think Pioli is thinking of going the Cassell route, freeing up the 1st rounder for another position.

You've also thought that Cowher AND Shanahan would be coaching the Chiefs.

No personal offense whatsoever but I think you're off on this one, too.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by jeffp12

Yeah you're right. It's a chicken or the egg kind of thing

Anything you say on this topic moving forward is INVALID.



I just don't know how to respond.

Help?

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Anything you say on this topic moving forward is INVALID.



I just don't know how to respond.

Help?

He is what Mr. Talking Can refers to as a true fan.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by jeffp12

I doubt 7 out of 33 is much better than simply the law of averages would give you.

If the record was like 15 of 33 top 5 picked qbs won a superbowl than you have some good statistical backup, but 7 out of 33 doesn't go much above the background noise.

Of course, those 7 went on to the Super Bowl, right?

[jeffp12]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Anything you say on this topic moving forward is INVALID.



I just don't know how to respond.

Help?

why

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by jeffp12

Wait....why are you throwing montana in there? He was a third round pick? and Brady? he was a seventh round pick!

First off, Champ, Brady was a 6th.

Are you seriously going to suggest that the Chiefs or any other team are routinely going to find HALL OF FAME QUARTERBACKS in the third and sixth round?

Huh?????????????????????

[jeffp12]

One of my biggest concerns is this: A great offensive line can make most quarterbacks look great. A terrible offensive line can make most quarterbacks look terrible.

So If you pick an amazing quarterback, a peyton manning or a dan marino, then sure, maybe he can overcome shortcomings in other places, but if you pick a Ben Roethlisberger, or a Trent Green or most mortal quarterbacks and put them behind a bad line you get a bad quarterback. So I would rather we shore up the line, shore up most of the team before we get a quarterback.

Herm's first year, when the offensive line was still as good as it was under vermeil, before guys started retiring, we made the playoffs despite losing trent green for most of the season. Damon Huard filled in and his stats looked like this
148-244 60.7 1878 yards 7.7yds/pass 11 td 1 int 98.0 rating

He was a pro bowl caliber QB because we ran the ball so well and had protection. Then in 07 and 08 we get the offensive line retirements and then huard looks like this
206-332 62.0 2257 6.8 11td 13int 76.8

and then in 08 he couldn't stay healthy and neither could Croyle because we couldn't protect them. You draft Peyton Manning and put him back there and we still don't have a lot of success, maybe he can overcome some of this, but he's not going to be the hall of famer he is without a good line. So I say invest in the big guys up front on both sides of the ball and they make everyone else look better. Far too often we give credit to running backs quarterbacks wide receivers and cornerbacks and safeties and linebackers for the stuff that linemen do.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by jeffp12

One of my biggest concerns is this: A great offensive line can make most quarterbacks look great. A terrible offensive line can make most quarterbacks look terrible.

So If you pick an amazing quarterback, a peyton manning or a dan marino, then sure, maybe he can overcome shortcomings in other places, but if you pick a Ben Roethlisberger, or a Trent Green or most mortal quarterbacks and put them behind a bad line you get a bad quarterback. So I would rather we shore up the line, shore up most of the team before we get a quarterback.

Herm's first year, when the offensive line was still as good as it was under vermeil, before guys started retiring, we made the playoffs despite losing trent green for most of the season. Damon Huard filled in and his stats looked like this
148-244 60.7 1878 yards 7.7yds/pass 11 td 1 int 98.0 rating

He was a pro bowl caliber QB because we ran the ball so well and had protection. Then in 07 and 08 we get the offensive line retirements and then huard looks like this
206-332 62.0 2257 6.8 11td 13int 76.8

and then in 08 he couldn't stay healthy and neither could Croyle because we couldn't protect them. You draft Peyton Manning and put him back there and we still don't have a lot of success, maybe he can overcome some of this, but he's not going to be the hall of famer he is without a good line. So I say invest in the big guys up front on both sides of the ball and they make everyone else look better. Far too often we give credit to running backs quarterbacks wide receivers and cornerbacks and safeties and linebackers for the stuff that linemen do.

You can easily shore up the line by drafting in the 3rd/4th round and signing a free agent or two.

[jeffp12]

Look at super bowl history, or look at the history of teams that are consistently winning. Hall of fame quarterbacks arent a requirement to win super bowls. They sure help, but winning is built on defense and offensive lines. You put Peyton Manning on a team without a defense or offensive line and you don't have much at all.

And sorry I said seventh when it was sixth. Huge difference. The point was he was lumping in 3 super bowl victories to the draft qbs in the top 5 strategy because it was Brady who was very much not a top pick.

You get a great offensive and defensive line and you'll make most any QB and defensive backfield look great.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by jeffp12

One of my biggest concerns is this: A great offensive line can make most quarterbacks look great. A terrible offensive line can make most quarterbacks look terrible.

So If you pick an amazing quarterback, a peyton manning or a dan marino, then sure, maybe he can overcome shortcomings in other places, but if you pick a Ben Roethlisberger, or a Trent Green or most mortal quarterbacks and put them behind a bad line you get a bad quarterback. So I would rather we shore up the line, shore up most of the team before we get a quarterback.

Herm's first year, when the offensive line was still as good as it was under vermeil, before guys started retiring, we made the playoffs despite losing trent green for most of the season. Damon Huard filled in and his stats looked like this
148-244 60.7 1878 yards 7.7yds/pass 11 td 1 int 98.0 rating

He was a pro bowl caliber QB because we ran the ball so well and had protection. Then in 07 and 08 we get the offensive line retirements and then huard looks like this
206-332 62.0 2257 6.8 11td 13int 76.8

and then in 08 he couldn't stay healthy and neither could Croyle because we couldn't protect them. You draft Peyton Manning and put him back there and we still don't have a lot of success, maybe he can overcome some of this, but he's not going to be the hall of famer he is without a good line. So I say invest in the big guys up front on both sides of the ball and they make everyone else look better. Far too often we give credit to running backs quarterbacks wide receivers and cornerbacks and safeties and linebackers for the stuff that linemen do.

GFY

You're a clueless, 90's automaton that would feel better if the Chiefs took a guard to minimize the pain that would ensue if drafted a QB that failed.

Nice, closed minded opinion.

I'll cherish it the next time I wipe my ass.